Recently I read this quote by the Dalai Lama: “When you talk, you are only repeating what you already know. But when you listen, you may learn something new.”

How profound! I have said many, many times that we must listen and try to understand others’ viewpoints and concerns before we can communicate why we farm and ranch the way we do. We must try to understand where people are getting their information, and what this information portrays farming to be. Only then can we understand how people process information and what they think about farming.

Others’ opinions are greatly influenced by outside sources. I’ve learned how crucial it is to find out to whom consumers are listening. In my experience, people with the strongest convictions on any certain subject are the ones who listen to rhetoric that feeds on emotions. The more their emotional heart strings are pulled, the tighter they hold onto their opinions!

That’s why it’s so important to consider the source… Did it The Des Moines Register? (Mainstream media doesn’t always cover both sides of the story nor does it necessarily get the facts straight!) If research is cited, who paid for it? Did the information come from a special interest group? If a consumer is concerned about food safety, did he or she consult with a dietician or a doctor? Or did the consumer get his or her information from the “experts,” who set up the new school lunch program? Perhaps the consumer first consult google, which is always right. Right?

All of these sources of information glean their information somewhere. For example, information may be from radical organizations with an agenda such as Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). This “non-profit organization” claims to care for animals, but it’s more about raising money to end animal agriculture. The more a person gets to know about HSUS, the better understanding they have the organizations true interest.

It’s also important to follow the money to find out how it may influence opinion. Newspapers want large circulations to keep their advertising sales strong. As a result, editors may be listening to a group here in Iowa like the Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement. I often see opinions in our state’s biggest paper from this group. Ironically, ICCI supports regulations to “protect” small farmers. As a small farmer, regulations make it more difficult for me to farm.

Regulations also have been a catalyst in farm consolidation. One example is the COOL law, or the Country of Origin Labeling. This law prevented me from sourcing my pigs from the best place I could find, which just happened to be in Canada. I had to turn to sources of pigs that were inferior, which puts me at a disadvantage because larger farmers raise their own pigs.

As you can see, not all sources of information are true experts on a subject matter. Even bonafide experts’ information may be biased by an ulterior motive or influenced by politics. Cargill’s announcement to eliminate all gestation stalls wasn’t about being better caretakers of pregnant sows. It was an image ploy to help keep their position in the market place.

Everyone has some kind of bias, I know. The way you were raised and your experiences all lead to the decisions you make and the advice you give. However, my experience has taught me there is a lot of information out there about farming. I’m all for letting consumers buy what they want, and I support food choice.

When a certain group tries to tell that another groups its products are wrong, or worse yet, they try to get regulations passed that limit choices, then I speak up. We all should!

The Des Moines Register did it again… the first editorial on the Opinion page of Sunday’s paper fueled another blog post. I’m glad the Register gives me material, but I’d rather these editors would just get the facts straight!

“Farmers must lead, not resist, change” reads the Sunday headline.  Further down the article, the copy reads: “Iowa and other Midwest agricultural states should acknowledge changing consumer attitudes and take the lead on improving food safety, livestock conditions and environmental protection.”

Paragraph two reads: “Iowans have grown skeptical of, if not hostile to, some aspects of modern farming, including genetically modified seeds and chemical additives in food. They want to know what is in their food and how livestock is treated.”

I doubt the writers realize their editorial is sending conflicting messages. On one hand, Iowa farmers are asked to be more environmentally responsible. On the other hand, we’re being asked to farm the way we did in the “good old days.” These two trains of thought of incongruent! So, which is it?

The Sunday Register editorial makes it seem so simple… Listen and change to meet consumers’ desires. What these writers (and consumers) don’t understand how complex agriculture is and how many different types of farming operations there are. What works for one farmer may or may not work for his neighbor. What works in one state may not work in another given different climates and practices.

When I listen to consumers, I hear them telling me ways to farm that don’t make sense. For example, I must be sustainable. Yet, I shouldn’t use the new technology that actually allows me to be sustainable. GM crops have made it possible to no till, which is a win for the environment, but they don’t want me to plant such crops.

Another consumer outcry is for farmers to raise pigs outside in a more “natural environment.” I used to raise pigs outside. Because I try to eliminate all the stress that I can for my animals, today I raise my hogs inside climate-controlled barns. Disease and death loss has significantly decreased since I have been raising pigs in a climate-controlled environment. On a cold, windy day with wind chills of 45 degrees below zero, the reality is that my pigs are way better off inside. On a night like last night where winds were gusting at 70 mph and rain was pelting down like bullets, the reality is that my pigs are way better off inside.

You see, farmers are leading and farming practices have changed over the years for good reason. The practices I use on my farm are done for a reason, and “the consumer” could at least try to understand. Consumers also must listen to what farmers have to say.

Listening goes both ways! As a farmer, I try to listen but I must do what I believe is right for my livestock and my land. I must use the farming methods that work best for me and my farm. I will keep listening, and speaking about why I do what I do!